Official FAR Craft Repository

[winged]

13 hours ago, NSEP said:

So, this is a little off-topic, but im trying to make FAR craft in realism overhaul, but there is this slightly well know problem and thats the bumpy terrain bug. How do i avoid this problem? Any ideas?

I've launched few planes from Shuttle Landing Facility and it seems to work fine in 1.2.2

But in most cases I just use KSP 1.0.5 for planes.

[NSEP]

1 hour ago, winged said:

I've launched few planes from Shuttle Landing Facility and it seems to work fine in 1.2.2

But in most cases I just use KSP 1.0.5 for planes.

Wich mod adds in the Shuttle Landing Facility? Thanks!

[winged]

1 hour ago, NSEP said:

Wich mod adds in the Shuttle Landing Facility? Thanks!

Real KSC -

 

Unfortunately due to some bug, Shuttle landing facility cannot be set as a default launch site. You need to spawn your craft at a stock runway and then move it using Vessel Mover.

[Van Disaster]

On 15/12/2017 at 5:38 PM, Gordon Fecyk said:

Have procedural wings and procedural tanks been tested against the current FAR? I have a heavy lifter that could stand some part count reduction. Tried Ubizor Welding but that seriously messed up the properties of the welded wings parts.

Proc parts seems ok, but I've only built very small aircraft with it - or used very small proc parts in bigger ones - recently. B9PW works as usual.

[AeroGav]

 I started a new career game with Ferram,   and built that game's first airplane.    I must be getting the hang of Ferram at last -  when i'd finally finished tweaking the transonic drag,  I rolled it out, and proved completely flyable with no reverts !   On stock aero,  that's pretty normal when you get used to its quirks (though minor tweaks are often needed to keep stuff flying straight), but it's the first time i've had such success with the more sophisticated modelling.

 

I gradually added more nose up trim, waiting for it to spin in,  but no such thing happened.  Think we can thank the leading edge droops for preventing tip stall .   They are set to -50% AoA or somesuch.  The Rudders have +100% on Yaw and -40% on Roll, so provide automatic yaw damping/co-ordinated turns.

At the other end of the speed range, the Wheesley is able to get us through mach 1 easily.   It can  zoom climb over 18km for the upper atmo science/observation contracts.

Sadly the spaceplane version is proving harder.   I now have Panther and Terrier unlocked, but it's going to have to go back for a second redesign after a few handling "quirks" were discovered at hypersonic speed

Edited December 20, 2017 by AeroGav

[Van Disaster]

@AeroGav I seem to remember the panther & the little orange & white radial attach rocket engine was a usable combo for spaceplanes - the rocket engine is low enough profile that you can clip it into a less-than-1.25m tank, so it's not enormously draggy.. Strapping solids to the thing works too, obviously

That is a B9 engine which I think is comparable to the Panther, but it could be the equivalent of the other supersonic jet.

It's a pity minature rockets come so late, tiny spaceplanes would be so useful early on. One can into space and back with a Juno and the tiny orange rockets.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Van Disaster

[AeroGav]

11 hours ago, Van Disaster said:

I seem to remember the panther & the little orange & white radial attach rocket engine was a usable combo for spaceplanes - the rocket engine is low enough profile that you can clip it into a less-than-1.25m tank, so it's not enormously draggy.. Strapping solids to the thing works too, obviously

I'm hoping this career game produces more realistic looking aircraft than my efforts in stock aero.      It is much easier to get past the sound barrier in FAR (stock aero really tries to make this into the main physical obstacle to reaching space) but above mach 2,  I think I can actually get better lift/drag ratios in stock aero.     Set prograde hold in stock aero, and a huge reduction in drag magically takes place.  If you can contrive enough lift while on prograde hold, you're golden.

My Panther /  Terrier FAR ships  end up fighting 30-40kn drag at mach 3 which means  I can't get away with such low rocket mode TWR as I can in stock aero or the grav losses kill me.

As a result I'm trying for a TSTO vessel first,  which punches off the jet engine, intake and empty fuel tanks to get the dry mass down.    Unfortunately I need to increase vertical stabilizer area,   at very high speeds, best L/D ratio is around an AoA of 9 degrees, but holding 9 degree AoA at mach 4-5 over 30km yaw stability is poor.      Also i'd used the basic winglets to fill in bumps in the cross sectional area profile of the airplane,  it's the only suitably small part i have unlocked but unfortunately these started melting about now asymmetrically,   which didn't help much.

Take off speed was over 150 m/s btw, which is ridiculous,  even though i normally obsess over low speed performance.   Hopefully  i'll find the empty ship, sans jet engine, lands at a more Kerbal friendly speed, if i ever get this thing to orbit. 

[Van Disaster]

You get some interesting aero balance issues creeping up at the end of Mach 4 - into Mach 5, I've found, I've had aircraft get unstable in pitch again around there even at low AoA; I'm sure this is either just drag-related or actually an effect of mach angle getting smaller, but it doesn't end going supersonic for sure.

If you're going to use a discardable jet booster I'd recommend taking a Juno to space, it should be enough to propel an empty spaceplane once you've re-entered & is rather nice if you flub the re-entry or even just final approach. If you're going that way though why not go all the way & use a rocket booster, and just have a small final stage rocket engine on the orbiter. The expensive part is from 27km, which is around end of airbreathing, up to somewhere near orbital speed, and that's the part I apparently used to use discardable stages for if I look back at my last career run.

Another way is to use wing-mounted discardable SRBs for that bit.

[AeroGav]

13 minutes ago, Van Disaster said:

If you're going to use a discardable jet booster I'd recommend taking a Juno to space, it should be enough to propel an empty spaceplane once you've re-entered & is rather nice if you flub the re-entry or even just final approach. If you're going that way though why not go all the way & use a rocket booster, and just have a small final stage rocket engine on the orbiter.

I'm pretty good at nailing dead stick re-entries so I'll pass on that.   I just stay in planetarium view at slightly above best glide AoA (say, 15 degrees) and pitch up more if it looks like i'm overshooting (point at which trajectory intersects ground level moving downrange) and lower pitch nearer to best glide if i'm looking like coming up short.

Cost vs capability wise,  panther or whiplash versus kickback is a close call, but i find the jet option easier to work with,  there's a lot less mass and thrust being suddenly shed and tbh unless the space plane is very light i doubt a Thumper can take it to Mach 2.8/15km on its lonesome.

 

[Van Disaster]

I love deadstick landings & generally I do land at idle, but there's enough chance of screwing up the last 25km that I tend to carry a jet anyway - ultra-annoying to nail the re-entry & then be a fraction low on energy on finals. For larger craft landing too fast is a killer, so energy management is quite critical.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Van Disaster

[fourfa]

@AeroGav are you using AJE with FAR, or stock engines?

[Surefoot]

12 hours ago, AeroGav said:

I'm hoping this career game produces more realistic looking aircraft than my efforts in stock aero.     

It does mostly, and if you stick to (proven) realistic designs they usually work very well. That's the main reason why i love FAR so much and spent hundreds of hours tinkering with aerodynamic designs. It's like "build-your-own-X-Plane" simulator Fighter jets usually fly pretty much like in the best flight sims out there, which is amazing.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Surefoot

[Cratzz]

I would like to wish you all a Happy New Year and say thank you for all the help, and inspiration through the years

This thread is useless without pics so i thought i'd share a F-14 and a Subsonic, lowrange something i did.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Cratzz

[Surefoot]

On 12/31/2017 at 5:11 PM, Cratzz said:

This thread is useless without pics so i thought i'd share a F14 (...)

That F-14 is looking good ! Did you manage to recreate the variable wings or are they just swept all the way permanently ?

[Cratzz]

9 hours ago, Surefoot said:

That F-14 is looking good ! Did you manage to recreate the variable wings or are they just swept all the way permanently ?

Thanks! I've tried to do it proper so it's got Variable-sweep in the right amount of degrees

Edited January 2, 2018 by Cratzz

[Joseph Kerman]

X-2 Shinshin rough replica.

RCS:

 

TWR:

 

Cruising speed:

 

Top Speed:

 

Turn G's:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real deal:

[Matuchkin]

@Joseph Kerman very good replica of the XF-222 SRhaipntsohrin. Looks almost like the real thing by Mitsu Lockheed Martin.

[Joseph Kerman]

4 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

@Joseph Kerman very good replica of the XF-222 SRhaipntsohrin. Looks almost like the real thing by Mitsu Lockheed Martin.

srsly?

[Cratzz]

 

My old F-14 save got lost, so did a new one! With variable wings.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Cratzz

[Joseph Kerman]

34 minutes ago, Cratzz said:

My old F-14 save got lost, so did a new one! With variable wings.

Hey, wanna fight? Your F-14 vs my F-15?

[Cratzz]

P-61 lookalike, insanly nimble & fun

Edited January 16, 2018 by Cratzz

[eberkain]

first FAR plane in a long time, forgot how much fun i had flying around.  

Edited January 21, 2018 by eberkain

[Cratzz]

In the mood for some Russian Mig-35

Edited January 30, 2018 by Cratzz

[Surefoot]

You still need to work that model a bit here's a mig 35 isometric projection view:

It should be wider and shorter in length. Also notice how the air intakes are completely hidden below the wing root extensions (and not sticking out).

[Cratzz]

Hey, thx for the input, yea the intakes has been fixed prior, and it's actually about 1 meter too short and the width is displayed wrong in the editor so it's a guessing game.

And now i see from the pic that the (cant remeber word, not tail fins but the ones that stick up) should be centered opposite side of the engine outtakes. Oh well, maybe i'll do a Mark 2